Investigation into SIS blacklisted trio

By KEVIN TAYLOR political reporter

Immigration Minister Paul Swain has ordered an Immigration Service report on the residency status of two men and a woman the Security Intelligence Service stopped from becoming citizens.

The trio remain in New Zealand, but calls mounted yesterday for their deportation.

Last night the service revealed the trio were a married couple given residency in 1998 and a man granted residency in 2000.

SIS director Richard Woods said on Tuesday the service intervened to stop the Department of Internal Affairs granting citizenship to the three in the 2002-03 year because of "security concerns".

Mr Woods said citizenship would have allowed the three to obtain a New Zealand passport, which was an "immensely valuable document" because the holder could travel without attracting much attention.

He indicated the SIS was more worried about New Zealand being used as a "safe haven" for terrorists to lie low than domestic terrorism.

Prime Minister Helen Clark yesterday scotched suggestions that New Zealand was a safe haven for terrorists.

She denied it was inconsistent the three be denied citizenship but still be allowed to stay in the country.

"What Mr Woods objected to is that these people might get a New Zealand passport and that's a very legitimate concern."

But New Zealand First, Act, National and United Future said the three should be deported.

Mr Swain told Parliament he had asked for a report from officials on "any outstanding matters to consider" including whether the applicants had given false information.

Revoking residency could be done in two ways - on the advice of the SIS director or if false information was given as part of the residency application.

"That is part of the reason we are investigating those residency applications."

Mr Swain said he was told yesterday by Mr Woods that the SIS director was making no recommendation that the trio's residency be revoked.

Mr Woods said the three had been told the SIS had intervened to stop them getting citizenship. And all appeared to have complained to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, retired High Court judge Laurie Greig.

Mr Greig revealed in his 2003 report to Parliament that three complaints were laid with him about "adverse recommendations" by the SIS on "requests under the Immigration Act".

He would not comment yesterday.

The service would give no further details on the trio.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said the grim reality was officials had no idea of the possible number of "sleepers" in New Zealand.

He attacked Labour's immigration policies and said it had been opening the doors to potential terrorists for years.

"The terrible recent tragedy in Spain, and earlier bombing in Bali, show just how ruthless these people can be."

National Party immigration spokesman Wayne Mapp said if there was doubt, the people must be deported.

"Any threat to our security or the security of our neighbours is simply unacceptable," he said.

"To say that we avoid safe haven status simply by denying citizenship to potential terrorists is absurd when the same people have permanent residency."

Act deputy leader Ken Shirley agreed with Dr Mapp.

"We can only assume that our Security Intelligence Service had valid reasons to come to that conclusion.

"It is extreme folly to allow such identified persons to freely live in New Zealand with permanent residency status."

United Future leader Peter Dunne said if the trio were disqualified from a passport for security reasons, the same logic must apply to residency status and they should be deported.

Green MP Keith Locke said he did not want the three deported.

"Presumably the three people ... are well-settled and law-abiding residents. Otherwise their permits would have been revoked."



Rules to stay

* Deportation is for anyone judged a national security threat, is a suspected terrorist, or has committed a serious criminal offence.

* The Immigration Minister can revoke residency if the permit was granted as a result of administrative error or obtained by fraudulent or misleading means.

* Decisions can be appealed.